Justia Georgia Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Gregory Williams and Shauna Smith were tried together and convicted for murder, burglary and related crimes in connection with the 2007 shooting death of Brian Mosely. Both appealed, one challenging the sufficiency of the evidence presented at trial; the other arguing her constitutional right to be present during all critical stages of trial was violated. Smith’s claim arose from her exclusion from an unrecorded bench conference between the trial court and counsel, after jury deliberations had begun, regarding the excusal of one of the jurors. After review, the Supreme Court concluded that the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions, and that Smith acquiesced in the error she raised on appeal. The Court therefore affirmed both convictions. View "Williams v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Rodney Shepard was tried by jury and convicted of murder and the unlawful possession of a firearm during the commission of a crime, both in connection with the fatal shooting of David Lumpkin. Following the denial of his motion for new trial, Shepard appealed, contending: (1) the evidence was insufficient to sustain his convictions; (2) that the trial court erred when it denied his motion to suppress a statement that he gave to law enforcement officers; (3) that the trial court erred when it charged the jury; and (4) that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel. Upon review of the record and briefs, the Georgia Supreme Court saw no error, and affirmed. View "Shepard v. Georgia" on Justia Law

The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals certified two questions of Georgia law to the Georgia Supreme Court, centering on whether Georgia exempts the funds in a health savings account (HSA) from inclusion in a bankruptcy estate. Debtor Denise Mooney filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy protection, listing a HSA on her petition, but exempting the entire amount in the account. Georgia law exempts the debtor’s right to receive “[a] disability, illness, or unemployment benefit,” and and “payment[s] under a pension, annuity, or similar plan or contract on account of illness, disability, death, age, or length of service, to the extent reasonably necessary for the support of the debtor and any dependent of the debtor.” The Chapter 7 trustee in this case objected to the HSA exemption. The Georgia Supreme Court held that an HSA did not constitute a right to receive a "disability, illness or unemployment benefit" under Georgia law, nor did it constitute a right to receive a "payment under a pension, annuity or similar plan or contract." View "Mooney v. Webster" on Justia Law

Appellant Hannibal McMullen was convicted of malice murder, aggravated stalking, possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony, and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, in connection with the shooting death of Ketrita Jones. He appealed, arguing, inter alia, the evidence was insufficient to prove venue. Finding no error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "McMullen v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Cortez McClain, Walter Simon, and Anthony Gene Trim were tried by jury and convicted of several crimes in connection with an attempted robbery. At trial, there was a dispute about the qualification of a prospective juror, whose daughter previously had been prosecuted in the same county for an armed robbery. During voir dire, the prospective juror expressed her discomfort with serving on the jury, explaining that the same prosecuting attorney had been involved in her daughter’s case, and noting that her daughter had been represented in that case by the lawyer now representing Trim. The prosecuting attorney sought to have the prospective juror struck for cause, but McClain, Simon, and Trim wanted to keep her. Over their objections, the trial court excused the prospective juror. McClain, Simon, and Trim appealed, and each claimed that the evidence was legally insufficient to sustain his convictions. McClain alone asserted that the trial court erred when it excused the prospective juror for cause. Finding the evidence legally sufficient, the Court of Appeals affirmed Simon and Trim’s convictions. But as to McClain, the Court of Appeals reversed, reasoning that a trial court has discretion to excuse a prospective juror for cause only after “an adequate inquiry has been conducted,” and concluding that the inquiry into the impartiality of the prospective juror in question was inadequate. Simon and Trim then filed petitions for writs of habeas corpus, each asserting that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel on appeal because his lawyer failed to raise a claim of error about the juror. A habeas court granted Simon’s petition; a different habeas court denied Trim’s petition, and Trim appealed. Although Warden Stan Shepard urged the habeas court to deny Trim’s petition, the Warden informed the Supreme Court that he no longer disputed that Trim was entitled to habeas relief. Though the Supreme Court was not bound by the litigating position of the Warden, the Court found it had an obligation to decide for itself whether the judgment of the habeas court was legally sound. Finding that it was, the Court affirmed the denial of the petition for a writ of habeas corpus. View "Trim v. Shepard" on Justia Law

A jury convicted Michael King for storing property on his Clayton County property without a proper permit. He appealed, arguing he was prosecuted for political reasons. Having reviewed the record and the applicable law, the Supreme Court found no merit in this assertion, and affirmed the conviction. View "King v. Georgia" on Justia Law

A grand jury indicted Cornelius Wright for the malice murder of Mitchieano Carmichael, as well as several related assault and firearms possession crimes. He would later be tried and found guilty on all counts against him. He appealed, arguing that the evidence was insufficient to support the convictions, and that he received ineffective assistance of trial counsel. Furthermore, Wright argued the trial court erred by prohibiting him from introducing evidence he contended would have shown specific acts of violence committed by the victim against third parties, and such evidence would have warranted a jury instruction on self-defense or voluntary manslaughter. Finding no errors, the Supreme Court affirmed Wright’ convictions. View "Wright v. Georgia" on Justia Law

Appellant Christopher Cushenberry appealed his convictions for felony murder and conspiracy to commit armed robbery in connection with the 2010 shooting death of Javarus Dupree. Appellant argued that the trial court erred in denying him a directed verdict of acquittal on all charges, because the evidence at trial was insufficient to support his convictions. He contended the state did not meet its burden to prove he was a party to the conspiracy and robbery and ultimate death of Dupree. Finding no reversible error in the trial court’s denial of a directed verdict, the Supreme Court affirmed appellant’s convictions. View "Cushenberry v. Georgia" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court granted a discretionary appeal of a superior court’s orders setting aside, in part, a final judgment and decree of divorce, and amending the final judgment of divorce. After a proceeding in which Wife was held in contempt, she filed in late 2013, a motion to set aside the March 2009 judgment and decree claiming, inter alia, that in his 2008 financial affidavit, Husband failed to disclose his interest in certain real properties. Husband opposed the motion to set aside, contending that the three-year statute of limitations barred any such claim under OCGA 9-11-60 (f). The trial court held that the three-year “statute of limitations” of OCGA 9-11-60 (f) was tolled until Wife became aware that Husband possessed certain previously undisclosed funds. However, the Supreme Court found that motion to set aside the judgment under OCGA 9–11–60 (d) was filed more than three years after the 2009 judgment. Because the motion to set aside the judgment was filed outside he exclusive time limitation for such a motion, the trial court’s order setting aside the judgment, as well as its subsequent order, was reversed. View "Myles v. Myles" on Justia Law

Devonni Benton appealed his convictions and sentences for felony murder, aggravated assault, and possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony in connection with the 2009 shootings of Jasmine Lynn, who died, and Jarvis Jones, who survived. Jury deliberations in Benton’s trial began on a Friday; the court arranged for the jury to resume deliberations the next morning. Generally, the courthouse was not open to the public on Saturdays. The next day, several individuals were allowed entry to the courthouse, but a number were turned away, including Benton’s sister, mother, and grandmother. Benton contends that this violated his rights under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, and Art. I, Sec. I, Par. XI (a) of the Georgia Constitution of 1983. Furthermore, Benton argued that he received ineffective assistance of trial counsel for failure to present certain witness testimony. Finding no error in either of Benton’s arguments made on appeal, the Supreme Court affirmed his convictions. View "Benton v. Georgia" on Justia Law